View Full Version : F-16 Viper Flies Home With 1/2 A Wing
jhirsh5280
02-21-2015, 22:05
Some amazing pictures of an F16 Viper that flew home with half a wing after a mid air collision during a training mission in Oklahoma.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-f-16-viper-managed-to-fly-back-to-base-missing-hal-1687086936/+chris-mills
Pretty impressive! Same goes for an f-18, f-15 and a-10 that I can remember.
HoneyBadger
02-21-2015, 22:18
LveSc8Lp0ZE
http://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/
electronman1729
02-21-2015, 22:20
Pretty Cool
I always loved the F-16. I remember watching them do touch and go's when I lived at Ramstein AFB in Germany
OctopusHighball
02-21-2015, 22:23
Crazy. I see they talk about the F-15 that lost a whole wing in the article and why this may be as impressive.
The pancaked F-16 was amazing too for a plane the fly boys refer to as "the lawn dart".
jhirsh5280
02-21-2015, 22:36
The F15 video is incredible. That pilot only had to 10 miles with 1 wing, still no small feat. The F16 pilot went 100 miles with a partial wing, again no small feat. Amazing technology, engineering and most importantly piloting by everyone.
100 miles?! They must of been serving lobster that night. I wonder how many airports he passed to get home?
jhirsh5280
02-21-2015, 22:46
100 miles?! They must of been serving lobster that night. I wonder how many airports he passed to get home?
From the article:
The extent of the damage is remarkable, with a massive portion of the wing ripped off like a shark took a chunk out of it mid-air. Even more remarkable is that the pilot of the stricken Viper was able to safely fly back to base, well over 100 miles from where the collision occurred.
Pretty Cool
I always loved the F-16. I remember watching them do touch and go's when I lived at Ramstein AFB in Germany
That is impressive. My buddy at work told me that a Phantom is proof that with enough thrust, even a brick can fly. I'll take his word for that.
From the article:
Yeah, I read that. But what struck me as wild is the absence of any other airports. At that point.....I'm looking for a long strip of pavement. The structural integrity of the aircraft was gone and God knows what he was leaking. Unlike the Eagle pilot, he knew his wing was gone and was 100 miles away from home. I've flown all over that whole state and I know there are long fields everywhere. Hell, I'd even try Salina. But, like every other superstitious pilot, I wasn't, so I won't go there.
Troublco
02-21-2015, 23:07
In the 90's, we had a very similar occurance with two of our birds at Buckley. They collided for the same reason (lost visual contact) over Cripple Creek. One lost one entire horizontal stab and the other had a wingtip rail and AMA pod (looks like a missile) torn off. I heard the rail and pod came down next to some guy's garage. The pilot of the bird that lost the stab said it flew normally.
After we had the one bird (87-0337) land at Lamar and pile up, I can see why a Viper pilot might want to go home. Our bird had an engine fire, and it got bad fast so he found the nearest airport - Lamar. Lamar doesn't have a barrier system like Military bases do, this being an arresting cable system at the ends of the runway. So he tried to land normally. He got the bird on the ground, and was rolling out at some speed still when the fire finished off the electrical and hydraulic systems. The aircraft began to veer off the runway, and you don't ride a viper into the dirt. So he punched out. The bird went off, hopped a taxiway, and when it came down on the other side it piled up and broke right at the cockpit, which is what they do when the nose gear collapses. He got to ride the silk. So I can see why they'd prefer to go home if they can.
belizejet
02-21-2015, 23:08
Man, We have a lot of aviation buffs on this forum. RMAC757...B6?
In the 90's, we had a very similar occurance with two of our birds at Buckley. They collided for the same reason (lost visual contact) over Cripple Creek. One lost one entire horizontal stab and the other had a wingtip rail and AMA pod (looks like a missile) torn off. I heard the rail and pod came down next to some guy's garage. The pilot of the bird that lost the stab said it flew normally.
That's because of the artificial feel in a fly by wire aircraft. In the fly by wire generation, feel is computed and given. Whatever type of flight augmentation computer it had dialed itself in. It probably used the remaining stab at twice the given angle to make up for the loss of deflection on one side. The days of manual hydraulic input and mechanical reversion ( unless your in deep shit ) are over. Or you fly freight, then everything sucks and is broken.
Man, We have a lot of aviation buffs on this forum. RMAC757...B6?
Yup, 12 years.
Man, We have a lot of aviation buffs on this forum. RMAC757...B6?
As you can tell I have a certain love for the 75. Spent some time at USAIR ( east)
As you can tell I have a certain love for the 75. Spent some time at USAIR ( east)
Thats my new bird, well 3 of them! 757-2, 757-300 and 767-400
belizejet
02-21-2015, 23:37
I'm a US guy (still cant say AA yet but I'm no opposed to it). Been here since 07 and currently doing a stint in the baby bus. Sniper 7, you move on from F9?
The linked article states that the F-16 does not have fuselage lift, but it actually does. College roommate's dad worked with the F-16 at GD back in the '80s. I heard at the time that they were working on software for the aircraft to automatically compensate for the loss of a wing.
Thats my new bird, well 3 of them! 757-2, 757-300 and 767-400
Congrats, you'll love it ( or them ). It's a bitch to get down, but it's a pilots airplane. I did the pond in the 76 at US as well. I hope you still have a scan ��. I was a 99 hire and 02 furlough out of Philly. I went to Bluejet after that. Flew all 3 busses at US too. Never took the recall because of my seniority at B6.
The linked article states that the F-16 does not have fuselage lift, but it actually does. College roommate's dad worked with the F-16 at GD back in the '80s. I heard at the time that they were working on software for the aircraft to automatically compensate for the loss of a wing.
It makes sense. Look at the inboard wing root.
Yeah, a feature of having the wing blended into the fuselage.
Yeah, a feature of having the wing blended into the fuselage.
I love the plane. It can smash and fight. IMO we need some block 60's. It has already been such a versitle asset.
I'm a US guy (still cant say AA yet but I'm no opposed to it). Been here since 07 and currently doing a stint in the baby bus. Sniper 7, you move on from F9?
Yeah, it was a great place, but can't say no to the big boys.
I think it's a shame that we're spending so much on so few super-high tech aircraft. We need to have more of these affordable and sustainable aircraft for a SHTF situation. Not everything has to be an F-22 or F-35. The F-15s and 16s do a helluva great job.
clublights
02-22-2015, 00:42
I think it's a shame that we're spending so much on so few super-high tech aircraft. We need to have more of these affordable and sustainable aircraft for a SHTF situation. Not everything has to be an F-22 or F-35. The F-15s and 16s do a helluva great job.
What saddens me is that some day we will have to see F-35's in thunderbirds colors.... And I think it will be the ugliest airframe since the F-100's The Phantom . talon and Viper are all good looking airplanes. and looked awesome in T-birds colors. the F-35 is blah.
Silly me, I always thought F-16's were called Falcons. Never heard 'em called Vipers before.....
I think it's a shame that we're spending so much on so few super-high tech aircraft. We need to have more of these affordable and sustainable aircraft for a SHTF situation. Not everything has to be an F-22 or F-35. The F-15s and 16s do a helluva great job.
i think that is where the drones come into play. Relatively cheap, can run as long as they have fuel since swapping "pilots" is as easy as another video gamer walking into the room with his coke and Cheetos and taking over from a remote operating base. no human factors issues "in" the cockpit for G's but also missing the "pilot shit" that those guys are great at.
looking back, the number of true dogfights our fighters have seen is very small since probably WWII. korea the U.S. mostly dominated but still suffered losses. Nam saw a shit load of aircraft losses, mostly attributed to SAMs and ground fire on choppers.
but I can think of a U2 that was shot down by the soviets, and a f-117 that was shot down of Kosovo or Serbia if I remember right.
so even our stealth stuff is vulnerable. I find it hard to justify a billion dollar price tag on a single fighter when they are looking at finally scrapping the a-10. I wish they take the billions and buy new parts or new a-10s. Those are the real heroes of today's combat aircraft IMO.
The reality is, our defense budget is wasted greatly on these high tech fighting equipment with crazy dollar figures that doesn't serve a huge purpose in our overall defense strategy, but on the other hand the technology achieved with that money spent eventually makes its way (for the most part) back to civilian uses that greatly improves every day life etc.
Silly me, I always thought F-16's were called Falcons. Never heard 'em called Vipers before.....
Actually it is named the general dynamics F-16 fighting Falcon but they got the name Viper from looking like a viper snake or the colonial viper in battle star Gallatica.
Silly me, I always thought F-16's were called Falcons. Never heard 'em called Vipers before.....
Seems to be a newer trend. I'm still used to them being referred to as the Fighting Falcon. Worked well when partnered with the F-15 Eagle.
I love raptors more than I do snakes. [Coffee]
...but I also love the Warthog.
Troublco
02-22-2015, 10:05
That's because of the artificial feel in a fly by wire aircraft. In the fly by wire generation, feel is computed and given. Whatever type of flight augmentation computer it had dialed itself in. It probably used the remaining stab at twice the given angle to make up for the loss of deflection on one side. The days of manual hydraulic input and mechanical reversion ( unless your in deep shit ) are over. Or you fly freight, then everything sucks and is broken.
The oldest had no feedback whatsoever on the sidestick, no feel whatsoever. They finally changed the sidestick so there was some movement (albeit very small) so there was some tactile sensation. Of course, this was done with a metal diaphragm that went between the stick itself and the transducer underneath. There was at least one instance where this diaphragm/plate wasn't properly treated, and it cracked....completely. Left the pilot with a sidestick in his hand and zero control.
Silly me, I always thought F-16's were called Falcons. Never heard 'em called Vipers before.....
Actually it is named the general dynamics F-16 fighting Falcon but they got the name Viper from looking like a viper snake or the colonial viper in battle star Gallatica.
Seems to be a newer trend. I'm still used to them being referred to as the Fighting Falcon. Worked well when partnered with the F-15 Eagle.
I love raptors more than I do snakes. [Coffee]
...but I also love the Warthog.
Originally one camp was trying to have them named Viper, and lost. I'm sure the powers that be thought Falcon went well with Eagle, since the 16 was intended to complement the F-15. Usually it's the pilots that call them Vipers, but after awhile it kind of rubs off. Fighting Falcon is the official name, sort of like the F-105 was a Thunderchief officially, and a Thud unofficially. Or, the B-52 BUFF...;)
The oldest had no feedback whatsoever on the sidestick, no feel whatsoever. They finally changed the sidestick so there was some movement (albeit very small) so there was some tactile sensation. Of course, this was done with a metal diaphragm that went between the stick itself and the transducer underneath. There was at least one instance where this diaphragm/plate wasn't properly treated, and it cracked....completely. Left the pilot with a sidestick in his hand and zero control.
I remeber reading about that with the early A and B models. I also heard that the pilots hated it so the engineers gave the stick movement and some feel. The lack of sidstick movement in the early jets made it extremely easy to self induce the aircraft into unwanted flight regimes which resulted in some crashes. I know the "Blues" actually attach a spring to their control sticks in order add additional feel for tight formations because the Hornets share a similar fly by wire system.
i think that is where the drones come into play. Relatively cheap, can run as long as they have fuel since swapping "pilots" is as easy as another video gamer walking into the room with his coke and Cheetos and taking over from a remote operating base. no human factors issues "in" the cockpit for G's but also missing the "pilot shit" that those guys are great at.
looking back, the number of true dogfights our fighters have seen is very small since probably WWII. korea the U.S. mostly dominated but still suffered losses. Nam saw a shit load of aircraft losses, mostly attributed to SAMs and ground fire on choppers.
but I can think of a U2 that was shot down by the soviets, and a f-117 that was shot down of Kosovo or Serbia if I remember right.
so even our stealth stuff is vulnerable. I find it hard to justify a billion dollar price tag on a single fighter when they are looking at finally scrapping the a-10. I wish they take the billions and buy new parts or new a-10s. Those are the real heroes of today's combat aircraft IMO.
The reality is, our defense budget is wasted greatly on these high tech fighting equipment with crazy dollar figures that doesn't serve a huge purpose in our overall defense strategy, but on the other hand the technology achieved with that money spent eventually makes its way (for the most part) back to civilian uses that greatly improves every day life etc.
Older fighter and attack aircraft don't make the defense industry money. They cost less, have a proven record and are available. This is not how the defense industry functions. It's no wonder that most Air Force generals end up working for these companies as advisors when they retire. They even went so far s to fabricate fratricide numbers on the A-10 to get rid of it when in actuality it wa s one of the most proven performers. The purposefully omitted data that should've shown that the A-10 had a far greater likely hood of hitting their targets than B-1's or Strike Eagles.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/air-force-released-cherry-picked-data-smear-a10/#.VNpLWQ__SbA.twitter
Look at the Mig-21. It is still operating today, albeit a bit dated. It was probably a much better "fighter" plane that the Phantom. The N Vietnamese just didn't know how to use them and only had a few. The pilots weren't alowed to deviate from a set script per soviet doctrine. The AF wanted a bomb truck and a fighter. What they ended up getting was an aircraft that turned slowly and didn't have a gun ( until much much later ) in the F-4. The F-105 actually had a negative loss ratio to the N Vitenamese Migs. Sometimes simple is better.
Troublco
02-22-2015, 15:08
Older fighter and attack aircraft don't make the defense industry money. They cost less, have a proven record and are available. This is not how the defense industry functions. It's no wonder that most Air Force generals end up working for these companies as advisors when they retire. They even went so far s to fabricate fratricide numbers on the A-10 to get rid of it when in actuality it wa s one of the most proven performers. The purposefully omitted data that should've shown that the A-10 had a far greater likely hood of hitting their targets than B-1's or Strike Eagles.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/air-force-released-cherry-picked-data-smear-a10/#.VNpLWQ__SbA.twitter
I know most folks (myself included) need a job after retirement from the military, but there really needs to be some control on it if you're in a position to make major policy and fiscal decisions...and then go to work for a company that benefitted from your decisions.
Aloha_Shooter
02-22-2015, 17:12
I know most folks (myself included) need a job after retirement from the military, but there really needs to be some control on it if you're in a position to make major policy and fiscal decisions...and then go to work for a company that benefitted from your decisions.
There is. It's called 18 U.S. Code Section 207. Officers can (and do) get prohibitions ranging from 1 year to lifetime against advising or representing companies doing business with the government depending on their level of influence and involvement with decisions affecting their potential future employer(s). What will happen is companies will hire someone they think will benefit them and set him or her to work in a different area that's legal until their prohibition passes.
Older equipment (not just aircraft) doesn't make the contractors AS MUCH money although there's still money to be made in upgrades and Service Life Extension Programs but the other issue is that it takes us 10-15 years to field a new program so the time to start getting what you think the future force needs is 15-20 years before you need it. Everyone in love with the F-15 and F-16 should realize there was significant opposition to purchasing those aircraft in the late 1960s/early 1970s just as there's been opposition in recent years to the F-22 and F-35 and for much the same stated reasons. In the meantime, our adversaries are looking to field 5th and even 6th generation fighters.
NOT buying the equipment you need in advance is what gives us situations like the start of WW2 when the Navy was flying F-2A Buffalos. The Army Air Corps was a bit better off with P-39 Airacobras and P-36 Hawks but ...
I know most folks (myself included) need a job after retirement from the military, but there really needs to be some control on it if you're in a position to make major policy and fiscal decisions...and then go to work for a company that benefitted from your decisions.
I by no means meant to say you didn't earn and deserve a job after retirement. I apologize if it was taken that way. The same cannot be said for certain generals.
There is. It's called 18 U.S. Code Section 207. Officers can (and do) get prohibitions ranging from 1 year to lifetime against advising or representing companies doing business with the government depending on their level of influence and involvement with decisions affecting their potential future employer(s). What will happen is companies will hire someone they think will benefit them and set him or her to work in a different area that's legal until their prohibition passes.
Older equipment (not just aircraft) doesn't make the contractors AS MUCH money although there's still money to be made in upgrades and Service Life Extension Programs but the other issue is that it takes us 10-15 years to field a new program so the time to start getting what you think the future force needs is 15-20 years before you need it. Everyone in love with the F-15 and F-16 should realize there was significant opposition to purchasing those aircraft in the late 1960s/early 1970s just as there's been opposition in recent years to the F-22 and F-35 and for much the same stated reasons. In the meantime, our adversaries are looking to field 5th and even 6th generation fighters.
NOT buying the equipment you need in advance is what gives us situations like the start of WW2 when the Navy was flying F-2A Buffalos. The Army Air Corps was a bit better off with P-39 Airacobras and P-36 Hawks but ...
All of this is true but the enviorment we are in now is totally different. We now spend almost 7 percent of our GDP on defense which leads second place China by a long shot. Any talk of a foreign 6th generation fighter close to production is pure bull. Russia is at least a decade away from fielding the PAK-50 in any numbers. Unlike pre WWII where we had dated military equipment and training, we are now a major exporter of defense type products and technology. Our soldiers are the best in the world and our equipment is leading edge in almost every aspect. In short, we are now leading the pack and the other runners are a lap behind us. The F-22 is probably the best at what it does, but we only have 187 of them. The F-35 by all accounts is a disaster so far. We've spent way too much to stop building it and the costs of the program have soared to a point where it's barley feasible. It's not going to be an Air Supremecy platform and while in "stealth" mode it doesn't carry much ordinance or fuel. The entire program was designed around being low cost per unit aircraft to replace our current fighter fleet. They also made the horrible decision to not go forward with an alternate engine for it in the F120, a proven, technologically advanced motor. Instead they went solely with the F119 which we've all seen by now is a problem. I think the entire program was compromised when we they decided there had to be a VTOL version. It increased the cross section of the airplane and essentially made them all great at nothing.
There's always going to opponents to new programs. The problem is spending. The sustainment costs between the aircraft we have and the aircraft we want is about 8 billion dollars a year. 8 billion dollars a year to replace something than can be upgraded until a feasible solution is found ( and we're broke ). We've spent too much ( and took a few nations with us on the ride ), expected to be 1.5 trillion over the life of the program. Unlike the F-16 and F-15 programs which were two totally different animals. No one doubted that we needed to upgrade our aircraft during the Cold War. The F-16 came in around 20 million a copy. It turned out to be one of the most versatile aircraft ever built. It can turn with anybody and be a bomb truck all in the same day. We should of just upgraded our current fleet. Wars soley being won in the air hasn't happened for a long time. But that's where we're putting our $$$.
I think a lot of this is the result of former or current Air Force Generals feather bedding themselves. The defense contractors big dollars are in new aircraft, not service life upgrades. I'm sure you've read the report...they lied about the performance of current equipment in order to procure more money for the F-35. Look at how many former generals are now on the payroll of major defense contractors. Sure there is a time and a place for new stuff but I'd hate to see the F-35 as our last manned fighter.
Rant over.
Aloha_Shooter
02-23-2015, 00:54
The entire program was designed around being low cost per unit aircraft to replace our current fighter fleet.
Interestingly, this was exactly the same argument made for the F-16. Not only were the F-15/16 supposed to be a high/low capability duo, they were also supposed to be high/low cost respectively but various factions kept adding things to the F-16 to where its unit cost was an extremely large rather than small fraction of the F-15. Not surprisingly, it's not quite as agile when it's loaded down with ordnance.
Personally, I felt 20 years ago (and still feel) that the 2000s should have been a leapfrog era where we advanced the technology without buying fleets like the century-series aircraft. I argued in SOS (over 20 years ago) that we would soon be in an era where there was no point in risking a pilot's life to deliver iron on a ground target; I think we're there now if it's a matter of hitting fixed ground facilities but I think we'll need a CAS/TAS successor to the A-10 for some years to come.
I think a number of people -- not just generals -- have compromised themselves over the years but I also draw exception to the bashers who claim we don't need to develop new platforms to replace the F-15 and F-16. Defense spending as a portion of GDP is about as low as it's been since FDR ordered MacArthur to rid DC of the inconvenient veterans demanding what had been promised to them. We are going broke but it's primarily on spending of dubious constitutionality -- at least national defense is called out as a duty of the federal government in the Constitution. The generals on the payroll of major defense contractors don't hold a candle to the revolving door between Treasury and Goldman-Sachs -- and the self-serving regulations they drive. Want to make yourself sick? Look up Franklin Raines and how he turned Fannie Mae into a personal piggie bank with personal profits in the tens of millions while shifting risk to the taxpayer, all of which came to bite us in 2007.
muddywings
02-23-2015, 13:55
I'm sure the powers that be thought Falcon went well with Eagle, since the 16 was intended to complement the F-15. Usually it's the pilots that call them Vipers, but after awhile it kind of rubs off. Fighting Falcon is the official name, sort of like the F-105 was a Thunderchief officially, and a Thud unofficially. Or, the B-52 BUFF...;)
Or A-10 Thunderbolt II vs Warthog....
Interestingly, this was exactly the same argument made for the F-16. Not only were the F-15/16 supposed to be a high/low capability duo, they were also supposed to be high/low cost respectively but various factions kept adding things to the F-16 to where its unit cost was an extremely large rather than small fraction of the F-15. Not surprisingly, it's not quite as agile when it's loaded down with ordnance.
Personally, I felt 20 years ago (and still feel) that the 2000s should have been a leapfrog era where we advanced the technology without buying fleets like the century-series aircraft. I argued in SOS (over 20 years ago) that we would soon be in an era where there was no point in risking a pilot's life to deliver iron on a ground target; I think we're there now if it's a matter of hitting fixed ground facilities but I think we'll need a CAS/TAS successor to the A-10 for some years to come.
I think a number of people -- not just generals -- have compromised themselves over the years but I also draw exception to the bashers who claim we don't need to develop new platforms to replace the F-15 and F-16. Defense spending as a portion of GDP is about as low as it's been since FDR ordered MacArthur to rid DC of the inconvenient veterans demanding what had been promised to them. We are going broke but it's primarily on spending of dubious constitutionality -- at least national defense is called out as a duty of the federal government in the Constitution. The generals on the payroll of major defense contractors don't hold a candle to the revolving door between Treasury and Goldman-Sachs -- and the self-serving regulations they drive. Want to make yourself sick? Look up Franklin Raines and how he turned Fannie Mae into a personal piggie bank with personal profits in the tens of millions while shifting risk to the taxpayer, all of which came to bite us in 2007.
Aloha, I have no doubt that you are a very intelligent guy. Sometimes it seems that you want to a disagree for disagreements sake. The F-22 is a marvel. It can shoot you down without turning on its radar BVR. JMHCS paired with high, off bore sighting and newer, more maneuverable missiles have changed the face of aerial warfare. You no longer have to be the most agile fighter to win an engagement. We should've built more F-22's and used it as a template for another design rather than start ground up on a plane that can be detected with long wave length radar. There's too many eggs in one basket. The F-35 is a technical wonder, but it's extremely vulnerable considering it's costs. It's not a ghost. If they would of scratched the B model there's no doubt that it would of been much more successful and not driven the costs up to what they are now (1.5 tril over the program life). I fear it's going to compromise the funds for future projects like a next gen bomber and smarter cruise missle technology against hardened targets and ships. China is spending boatloads on radar technology to defeat our "stealth" programs and it will be for sale to any country wishing to pony up the cash. I don't think anyone is "bashing" the pursuit of technology. I think that the money could've been more wisely spent. I think ( as much as I like this stuff, I'll admit, I'm an airplane nerd ) this discussion has run its course. Agree to disagree. Have a good day.
BTW. There were no century series fighters built in the 2000's.
Aloha_Shooter
02-23-2015, 14:58
We should've built more F-22's
I think you'd find lots of us would agree with you there; unfortunately, Gates would brook no dissension and we lost a CSAF and SecAF when they pushed that point.
BTW. There were no century series fighters built in the 2000's.
I'm well aware of that. My point was that we could have spent the 2000s doing the same kind of thing we did with the century-series (50 years prior) to advance the state of art without having to go into huge production runs that bankrupt future acquisitions. Perhaps my wording was unclear.
I think you'd find lots of us would agree with you there; unfortunately, Gates would brook no dissension and we lost a CSAF and SecAF when they pushed that point.
I'm well aware of that. My point was that we could have spent the 2000s doing the same kind of thing we did with the century-series (50 years prior) to advance the state of art without having to go into huge production runs that bankrupt future acquisitions. Perhaps my wording was unclear.
[Beer]
tim-adams
02-23-2015, 18:15
Some amazing pictures of an F16 Viper that flew home with half a wing after a mid air collision during a training mission in Oklahoma.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-f-16-viper-managed-to-fly-back-to-base-missing-hal-1687086936/+chris-mills
the odds of two aircraft getting that close to collide in the same incident are so crazy small.. there really is a lot of sky up there :-)
the odds of two aircraft getting that close to collide in the same incident are so crazy small.. there really is a lot of sky up there :-)
Maybe not when they're converging on the same bogey. [Coffee]
Maybe not when they're converging on the same bogey. [Coffee]
Or you're each other's bogey.
Troublco
02-23-2015, 23:29
I by no means meant to say you didn't earn and deserve a job after retirement. I apologize if it was taken that way. The same cannot be said for certain generals.
Not what I meant, either. But I agree with the last part.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.